Career Coach: Just what does your network look like?

Well, maybe. It's certainly the right thing to do, but doing the right thing and doing the thing right are not necessarily the same. One is intent; the other is result.

That networking is critical is understood, but how well are you doing it? And just what does your network look like? A look at networks of three of my clients (with their permission) underscores the relevance of these questions. For the purpose of this discussion, we'll let Linked In represent each person's network. Surely there's more to networking than Linked In, but this is one way to apply a standardized test, if you will.

Keith is a pharmaceutical sales rep with 12 years' experience, eight with his current employer. Previously, he had two jobs in another industry after graduation 15 years ago. Keith has 367 Linked In connections and, right here, it should be said that the number of connections is not what makes a good network. It's quality, not quantity - no exception. Anyway, in a nutshell, 245 of Keith's connections (two-thirds) are in his industry, and 97 are in his company. Further, 55 of those 97 are sales reps from his company. In a word, Keith's network is provincial: very little outside his immediate circle. He needs connections in other companies, industries, levels and professions.

Katie, a staff accountant in the only job she's had since graduation six years ago, boasts 500-plus connections, a number that is, by all accounts, hard to manage. Nonetheless, many people are in this category, so OK. However, in analyzing this, Katie realized that most of her connections - at least 400 - are simply duplications of her list of Facebook friends. So if there's a word for Katie's network, that word is irrelevant. If you're going to play around like on Facebook, you don't really need Linked In. Few of her connections are of any potential professional value - or people to whom she can be of professional value.

Laura, a vice president of operations, has had 10 positions at six companies in her 35-year career, becoming unemployed five months ago. Laura also has 500-plus connections but, more interestingly, she's been a member of 71 Linked In groups. Yes, 71! Twelve are from her alma mater alone: general alumni list, specific campus list, her business school, sorority, regional chapter, and so on. She's a member of countless professional and industry groups, former employees from a previous employer, more nonprofits than you can imagine, three groups of antiques aficionados, five groups of hobbyists, and two groups of people in an occupation she left 27 years ago. Nuts! If she spends only 20 minutes a day in each group, that would consume a full 24 hours - one-seventh of her week - on that alone. And, by the way, how many of these groups lead to her getting out and doing real, on-your-feet networking? None. She "doesn't have time." Laura's network is unfocused, bloated, overloaded, hardly active, and unproductive.

So what do we make of all this?

Linked In alone is not networking, but it did help apply a good measurement tool, from which we conclude:

1. Your network should be diverse and inclusive, going well beyond your industry, occupation, professional or educational level, or geography. As globalization affects everyone, the employee of a local company today could be working for a company from another country tomorrow. Or want to. Or have to.

2. Your network should be large but manageable. Rule of thumb: everyone in your network should hear from you at least twice a year: phone call, meeting, or email. With 400 people in your network, for example, that's about two contacts per day. That's manageable.

3. Your network should be one that prompts action: attending events, shaking hands, having drinks, sharing activities. You don't network on your keyboard; you network on your feet.